Planning in the Dark: LLM-Symbolic Planning Pipeline Without Experts
Sukai Huang, Nir Lipovetzky, Trevor Cohn
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in solving natural language-described planning tasks, but their direct use often leads to inconsistent reasoning and hallucination. While hybrid LLM-symbolic planning pipelines have emerged as a more robust alternative, they typically require extensive expert intervention to refine and validate generated action schemas. It not only limits scalability but also introduces a potential for biased interpretation, as a single expert's interpretation of ambiguous natural language descriptions might not align with the user's actual intent. To address this, we propose a novel approach that constructs an action schema library to generate multiple candidates, accounting for the diverse possible interpretations of natural language descriptions. We further introduce a semantic validation and ranking module that automatically filter and rank the generated schemas and plans without expert-in-the-loop. The experiments showed our pipeline maintains superiority in planning over the direct LLM planning approach. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of a fully automated end-to-end LLM-symbolic planner that requires no expert intervention, opening up the possibility for a broader audience to engage with AI planning with less prerequisite of domain expertise 1 .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext a6e148b7-2ce9-454a-8925-98172d29c22eCited by top-tier papers2
- CoS: Towards Optimal Event Scheduling via Chain-of-SchedulingYiming Zhao, Jiwei Tang, Shimin Di, Libin Zheng et al.AAAI 2026 · 7 citations
- Symmetry-Aware Transformer Training for Automated PlanningMarkus Fritzsche, Elliot Gestrin, Jendrik SeippAAAI 2026 · 3 citations
Builds on9
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- Language Models as Zero-Shot Planners: Extracting Actionable Knowledge for Embodied AgentsWenlong Huang, Pieter Abbeel, Deepak Pathak, Igor MordatchICML 2022 · 1,539 citations
- Contrastive Learning with Hard Negative SamplesJoshua David Robinson, Ching-Yao Chuang, Suvrit Sra, Stefanie JegelkaICLR 2021 · 999 citations
- On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models - A Critical InvestigationKarthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Sarath Sreedharan, Subbarao KambhampatiNeurIPS 2023 · 509 citations
Related papers
- Hierarchical Planning for Complex Tasks with Knowledge Graph-RAG and Symbolic VerificationFlavio Petruzzellis, Cristina Cornelio, Pietro LioICML 2025
- Towards Reliable Code-as-Policies: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Embodied Task PlanningSanghyun Ahn, Wonje Choi, Junyong Lee, Jinwoo Park et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 14 citations
- On the Limit of Language Models as Planning FormalizersCassie Huang, Li ZhangACL 2025
- NL Schedule: Evaluate Multitask Scheduling Capability of Large Language ModelsWenrui Liao, Weihong Du, Yi Li, Hongru Liang et al.ACL 2026
- Language Model as Planner and Formalizer under ConstraintsCassie Huang, Stuti Mohan, Ziyi Yang, Stefanie Tellex et al.ACL 2026 · 3 citations
